Right, every time there is a massacre, they talk about assault weapons even when none were used. Also, the stats I'm quoting are legit, look them up if you don't believe it. Do the work, realize the flawed logic, become better.
Look the numbers up if you like, they are accurate. What I mean by get close is that when you have a handgun or knife, you can get in the middle of a crowd so that you'll have a ton of targets and you can kill a lot of people. With a rifle there's no way you get to the middle of a crowd to start, people would start running upon seeing you. If you wanted to kill the most people possible, you'd get into the middle of a big crowd and then pull out a handgun and go to town. Assault rifles are just much less practical for that sort of thing.
Honestly when it comes to gun violence, rifles are an extremely small part of the problem. Handguns are a far bigger problem.
Bobby: "Someone said rifle at the very beginning, let's ignore all further arguments about guns and try to ride the rifle talk as long as I can, even if it makes no sense anymore and everyone else is talking about gun control"
At the end of the day the amount of rounds that a shooter can discharge before reloading is the largest factor in how much damage a shooter can inflict on a large crowd thus a semi-auto rifle that can hold magazines such as cmags that can hold ONE HUNDRED ROUNDS are always going to be more dangerous than a handgun.
"This is for Syria", really what part? Assad killing his own people or the opposition factions killing the nationalist supporters?
It was showing all total murders. Its the mass murdering sprees that are getting the most attention, and for that I would think assault rifles/semi-automatic weapons are a significant portion. According to the following, more than half of the mass killers used assault weapons or high capacity magazines: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/weapons-and-mass-shootings/
So more than half of a really small percentage of the problem...seems like an area we should be focusing on.
By this argument, we can also say that terror attacks within the US in general shouldn't be focused on because historically it constitutes a small percentage of total murders. If you pull back far enough, anything can be made to appear insignificant.
It just seems like some are going out of their way to find a scapegoat and are looking for something to ban to make themselves feel better. Handguns are the real danger and there's really not much that can be done about it. And if you go by numbers, there were more murders via rifles during the period where assault rifles were banned than since that ban has been lifted.
